# Should Christians Be Forced to Photograph Gay Weddings? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 11, 2012, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847 "2012-06-11T19:50:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 26
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/501 "2012-06-15T01:23:06Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Hmm, I must be crossing my wires–I thought I’d read that the photog had initially agreed to shoot a wedding, but then cancelled when she found out it was a same-sex ceremony, but I can’t find a cite for that now. In the opinion that was linked to on an earlier page, the studio stipulated that the creation of a contract is a part of its business practices. When I first read that portion of the document, I initially thought that it referred to a contract that had actually been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. A more careful re-reading allowed me to correct my error. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/502 "2012-06-15T01:24:45Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > I haven’t the slightest idea of what your saying. What is your point? You bolded the “any person”, suggesting that it applied to all people - I added the additional bolding to the qualifier “in”, which implies that its not people, per se, but people that are a public acccomidation - ie ‘business owners’ - the rule would not just apply to people that might free lance services, but to people that own/operate a business. It may not have been the distinction you were intending to make - but that is how I read it at the time. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/503 "2012-06-15T01:27:56Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Very few religions on earth prohibit interacting with blacks and Jews. > [@jayjay](#): > > NOW. Go back 50 or 100 years and take another poll. Wow, that’s kind of a peremptory tone you’re taking. Are you even the boss of her? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/504 "2012-06-15T01:30:14Z")
nm. Ninja’d. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/505 "2012-06-15T01:33:03Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > The NM law says: > > **any person** in any public accommodation A (Catholic) church and its reception hall aren’t “public”. The reception hall is “members only”. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/506 "2012-06-15T01:35:05Z")
> [@Sudden\_Kestrel](#): > > Even with that deeply nuanced, highly qualified, and no doubt genetically superior statement, my disagreement stands. I’m sure you couldn’t care less, though. 😉 > [@](#): > > If the matter were as clear-cut as you pretend it is, this issue would have been resolved long before now. Assuming the “matter” has presented itself “long before now” which quite simply isn’t true as “you pretend.”. Anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation for the most part haven’t been around very long as “you pretend” and their potential implication of free speech rights in regards to photography is a “matter” which has not been around “long before now.” Some “clear-cut” issues quite simply take awhile to find themselves litigated in a court room. The Court has, however, addressed the issue of anti-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the context of speech and speech compulsion. The Court ruled, in _Hurley_, the anti-discrimination law on the basis of sexual orientation cannot be used to compel accommodation to gays and lesbians when to do so would constitute as speech and therefore, speech compulsion by the government. > [@](#): > > One of the things you don’t seem to understand is that the law is not requiring anybody to engage in any particular “expressive conduct” in this case. No, I understand it. Perhaps you have been remissed in failing to notice in different posts to different posters making the same point I have admitted this “may be true” or “maybe so” or “perhaps” because this is a “novel” issue not addressed by the Court or the federal courts at the present time. I just disagree with this position in part because of the reasons and law I have provided. > [@](#): > > going with a personal anecdote about recommending a wedding photographer in a discussion about discrimination, art and the First Amendment? Your friend’s request for the name of your photographer might make a nice Facebook post, but it doesn’t have anything to do with whether wedding photographs are expression as opposed to product. My response wasn’t used in relation to the 1st Amendment but to address your idea people, when looking at photographs, never wonder who took the picture. This quite simply isn’t true. This isn’t particularly germane to the 1st Amendment question but I thought I’d address your digression. > [@](#): > > Your friend’s request for the name of your photographer…doesn’t have anything to do with whether wedding photographs are expression as opposed to product. I never said it did but I did post criteria used in a series of cases, including a U.S. Supreme Court case, in which they have held photographs can contain a message, are expressive, the photographs in the case at issue in those decisions were expressive, they were speech, and the criteria for them to be expressive. > [@](#): > > I think you’re painting expressive conduct with too broad a brush. I am simply relying upon what the Court and federal appellate courts have said when photographs are said to be expressive. As a result, you can criticize the federal judiciary for “painting expressive conduct with too broad a brush.” > [@](#): > > If my company, Nuclear Family Baby Products LLC, is not required to hire Hispanics or Christians just because I hammered some sticks together in a vague semblance of a highchair and painted a bunny on it, then laws governing business don’t apply at all and should be scrapped. Virtually all businesses produce something that involves creativity and expression. The flaw with your argument is it is not true all businesses product something, or anything, which constitutes as speech or expressive conduct. Furthermore, your analogy is a false one. Discrimination is not permitted because the company creates products constituting as speech or expression. The fact you create a product possessing expression or message does not suggest you can discriminate against people on the in employment on the basis of race or some other criteria and this is not and never has been my argument. Rather, the discrimination is permitted because the action itself constitutes as expression and to engage in this expressive conduct by compulsion under the statute constitutes as speech compulsion. In your example, you referenced “hiring” and refusal to hire but hiring is not and has never been held to be expressive conduct, like photography. So, your equivocation between hiring and photography is an error. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/507 "2012-06-15T01:36:36Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > A (Catholic) church and its reception hall aren’t “public”. The reception hall is “members only”. Yeah so? I never said otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/508 "2012-06-15T01:40:27Z")
> [@simster](#): > > You bolded the “any person”, suggesting that it applied to all people - I added the additional bolding to the qualifier “in”, which implies that its not people, per se, but people that are a public acccomidation - ie ‘business owners’ - the rule would not just apply to people that might free lance services, but to people that own/operate a business. > > It may not have been the distinction you were intending to make - but that is how I read it at the time. No, actually I did not make this suggestion. Rather, my “bold” was made in a direct response to another poster and their _specific_ comment. My statement included the qualifier you talk about so it is rather, well, untenable to think I was making any suggestion it applied to all people especially when I included the qualifying language. I was in fact, addressing a specific point of another poster and the context is rather important in undestanding why I emphasized the words “any person” among the words in the _entire_ phrase. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/509 "2012-06-15T01:55:46Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I disagree with this statement- no one has ever been punished for not fully endorsing or promoting the “homosexual agenda”. Actually, I’m not really clear on what the “homosexual agenda” is. If it’s just the stated goals- like homosexual couples getting rights like adoption, inheritance, hospital visitation, equal treatment under the law, etc, then I’m all for it. Is the “homosexual agenda” something different? AFAICT the homsexual agenda is a name given by conservative Christians to the fact that homosexuality is a very normal and natural occurance in a certain % of human beings. They refuse to accept this fact as reality and the evil agenda is to get this simple fact recognized. It’s akin to creationists calling evolution the “scientific agenda” as if science itself is plotting against thier religious freedom to live in ignorant denial. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/510 "2012-06-15T02:05:39Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > \*Eating at a lunch counter I’m going to take a guess here that a business cannot side-step laws on lunch counter equality just because their servers are “sandwich artists” or even if there are actual artistic components to the food and service (e.g. Teppanyaki or elaborately arranged Bento). ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/511 "2012-06-15T03:37:26Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > Yeah so? I never said otherwise. Since it was you who quoted law pertaining public places when I has specified “Catholic weddings”… ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/512 "2012-06-15T04:03:21Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > AFAICT the homsexual agenda is a name given by conservative Christians to the fact that homosexuality is a very normal and natural occurance in a certain % of human beings. > They refuse to accept this fact as reality and the evil agenda is to get this simple fact recognized. > > It’s akin to creationists calling evolution the “scientific agenda” as if science itself is plotting against thier religious freedom to live in ignorant denial. Yeah, generally “the homosexual agenda” is shorthand for “people are trying to get us to stop being revolting, hateful, ignorant, mean little bigots, and to instead make us treat homosexuals like human beings and stop denying them civil rights. We don’t want none of that, and we’ll keep on smiting teh ghey out of our Love for mankind.” ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/513 "2012-06-15T04:13:15Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Yeah, generally “the homosexual agenda” is shorthand for “people are trying to get us to stop being revolting, hateful, ignorant, mean little bigots, and to instead make us treat homosexuals like human beings and stop denying them civil rights. We don’t want none of that, and we’ll keep on smiting teh ghey out of our Love for mankind.” Don’t forget they believe it’s also an attempt to recruit more people to the gay lifestyle. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/514 "2012-06-15T12:49:49Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Since it was you who quoted law pertaining public places when I has specified “Catholic weddings”… I never quoted a law pertaining to public places. You most certainly have me confused with someone else. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/515 "2012-06-15T14:38:47Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > NOW. Go back 50 or 100 years and take another poll. Some examples, please? There was social pressure against intermarriage and other such close relationships (and still is, for that matter), but even a hundred years ago few sects forbade all interaction whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/516 "2012-06-15T14:42:25Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > There was social pressure against intermarriage and other such close relationships Just to clarify a vague phrasing, “social pressure” means interracial relationships or marriage were illegal in many states. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/517 "2012-06-15T14:50:00Z")
He’s referring to a post about religious prohibitions, not legal ones. I can’t think of any mainstream religious group other than the CJCLDS that _openly_ discriminated against blacks 50 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/518 "2012-06-15T15:00:24Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > It’s not as contradictory as it sounds. You cannot be physically compelled to provide your services to all groups equally; that is: nobody is going to turn up at your door and frogmarch you to the gay wedding ceremony and make you take photographs at gunpoint. > But if you wish to operate as a service business in the equitable public environment the government is trying to create for people to live in, if you do refuse to provide a service to someone on the basis that they are a member of a protected group, there is a penalty for having done so. Ptooey. You want to use the power of the state to punish people who don’t conform to your ideology. If she doesn’t want to photograph a wedding for whatever reason, the state has no business penalizing her for refusing to do so. Barring unusual circumstances, you don’t have a “basic human right” to require others to do business with you or associate with you if they don’t want to. Getting your feelings hurt because someone doesn’t approve of the way you live is not a violation of your “human rights.” ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/519 "2012-06-15T15:03:14Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Just to clarify a vague phrasing, “social pressure” means interracial relationships or marriage were illegal in many states. He made much too wide a claim. A few sects prohibited any interaction, but the vast majority did not. Not even in the Bad Old Days. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847/520 "2012-06-15T15:03:59Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Barring unusual circumstances, you don’t have a “basic human right” to require others to do business with you or associate with you if they don’t want to. Just to be clear, you feel that a business like a restaurant has the right to not serve people based on the color of their skin? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-christians-be-forced-to-photograph-gay-weddings/624847.md?page=27)